GRGR (15): Good & Evil (was Enzian...)

[rj]

> And what I meant to say more clearly is this: the dog's behavior after 
> being liberated doesn't alter the immorality of the beatings.

Agreed. Within this local context the dog is innocent, or "good". And
the beater is in the wrong. But if the dog subsequently maims someone's
innocent daughter it is no longer "good". Or can we exonerate the dog on
the grounds that it was previously an innocent victim itself, or even
for the fact that the harm done to it has in some way predisposed it to
vicious attacks on humans?

Morality would only apply to the agent, wouldn't it: the "beater",
rather than to the beatings? For, while in one context a beating may be
reprehensible, in another it may be quite reasonable (in self-defence,
for example). And, do we need to investigate what has motivated, or
caused, the dog beater's cruelty in the first place, or is this
irrelevant? 

Imo "evil" doesn't inhere in human nature: morality is simply a product
of cultural conditioning. Witness the different attitudes to murder and
retribution amongst different cultures, and even the changing foci of
morality through the history of Western Christianity.

best